Israel.7056
-
Posts
1,349 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Israel.7056
-
-
> @"Shining One.1635" said:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to rebalance first?
Hard to say as it's unclear to me exactly how they go about rebalancing in the first place.
-
> @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> l2play issue. Focus downs, no problem. If you can't kill them fast enough, they shouldn't be yours to take. Skilled fighters can do this fast and proper.
If you're right then nothing much will change in terms of outcomes if downed state is removed right?
-
> @"sephiroth.4217" said:
> > @"Israel.7056" said:
> > > @"sephiroth.4217" said:
> > > Removing downstate will only encourage more 1 shot builds... You guys sure you want that?
> >
> > This is static thinking. The game can always be rebalanced.
>
> And you can rely on Anet to do that?
I believe that if hypothetically they removed downstate that they would attempt subsequent rebalancing.
I cannot say with any confidence that it would be either timely or good given their track record.
But I've also played through I think every single meta the game has ever had and I think that if I can go through the old culling carried perma stealth c and d thief meta and the deathly chill reaper shout meta without throwing my computer out the window I could deal with getting one shot from time to time by mesmers or thieves or whatever (which kinda already happens anyways let's be real.)
-
> @"sephiroth.4217" said:
> Removing downstate will only encourage more 1 shot builds... You guys sure you want that?
This is static thinking. The game can always be rebalanced.
-
> @"BadMed.3846" said:
> Paying a reasonable amount to enjoy the full features of the game is not pay 2 win in any way.
Definitely didn't read the thread.
-
Suppose I'm inclined to agree.
-
> @"Axelteas.7192" said:
> > @"Israel.7056" said:
> > > @"Axelteas.7192" said:
> > > > @"phs.6089" said:
> > > > > @"Skeletor.9360" said:
> > > >
> > > > > Really tired of new players not realizing that some of us paid for the game. Then an expansion came out which degraded our accounts in game content that we paid for. The only way to not be downgraded in power was to pay for the expansion - in old content. Nobody is asking for a freebie. We are asking that either you give away the new abilities in the old content OR you remove the abilities from the old content.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure Arena would be happy to introduce subs to get access to elits and maps for those that don't own exapcs. Like TESO did. If there are many players like you.
> > > > Giving you access to a paid product for free isn't an option
> > > >
> > > > Other comments look like i bought this car in 1999, then the model got modifications and enchantments. Why factory is treating us that bad? If we who bought original model in 1999 can't have those modifications, downgrade the rest of production line.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wrong analogy. Think what if the factory modifies the road to be only used by new models, while 1999 models would have problems and accidents driving in the new road? Thats what Anet has done!
> >
> > Public roads are a form of common good which is to say they're non-excludable. Gw2 is not.
>
> Yes but you cant drive a Frod T in the highway because modern cars will kick you in the as, like core builds are kicked by overpowered expansion builds
Yeah and that definitely appears to be their intention even though they originally talked about elites as sidegrades.
-
> @"Axelteas.7192" said:
> > @"phs.6089" said:
> > > @"Skeletor.9360" said:
> >
> > > Really tired of new players not realizing that some of us paid for the game. Then an expansion came out which degraded our accounts in game content that we paid for. The only way to not be downgraded in power was to pay for the expansion - in old content. Nobody is asking for a freebie. We are asking that either you give away the new abilities in the old content OR you remove the abilities from the old content.
> >
> > I'm sure Arena would be happy to introduce subs to get access to elits and maps for those that don't own exapcs. Like TESO did. If there are many players like you.
> > Giving you access to a paid product for free isn't an option
> >
> > Other comments look like i bought this car in 1999, then the model got modifications and enchantments. Why factory is treating us that bad? If we who bought original model in 1999 can't have those modifications, downgrade the rest of production line.
> >
> >
>
> Wrong analogy. Think what if the factory modifies the road to be only used by new models, while 1999 models would have problems and accidents driving in the new road? Thats what Anet has done!
Public roads are a form of common good which is to say they're non-excludable. Gw2 is not.
-
> @"Axelteas.7192" said:
> I'm agree 100% with the OP. It IS PAY TO WIN, and the people who says the opposite are who bought the expansions.
> Class specializations are an empowerment that canntot be obtained in the game. We who only bought the core version in 2012 and dont want or cant buy the next 2 are being treated bad because we cant compete with pay to win specs in PVP and WvW.
> We deserve a vanilla server to play in equality of conditions. We that bought the game initially are being treated as bad as the stingy people that plays in f2p accounts and thats unfair.
I agree with the first part but I don't agree with the conclusion.
-
Any game mode where people compete against one another is a competitive game mode. How much meaning you personally assign to that competition is entirely subjective but it's nonsensical to say that wvw isn't a competitive game mode. It is. The reason what we call "casuals" are so attracted to it is i think largely due to the absence of an ultra time consuming never ending gear grind which plagues most mmos.
The only reason pros prefer one game to another is money. They do not care how much "skill" is required they simply chase the big paychecks and those happen to be in other games because those other game devs need to try to develop that kind of scene around their game to maintain a consumer base whereas mmos usually do not.
The term "skill" is also used as a catch all term to describe a wide range of things not just what we might more succinctly call "mechanical skill" which is what it seems you guys are only talking about now.
-
30 percent a little over the top don't you think?
-
> @"SoV.5139" said:
> I agree with this, but the severe lack of skill in the current "one shot kill" meta prevents me from wanting a no down state WvWvW. Every time someone comes out of stealth with a 25k burst a player goes back to spawn regardless of skill level. Downed state makes those glassy power builds have to consider an actual risk factor rather than just going HAM. Its a risk vs reward playstyle after all. Removing the risk just furthers this already rediculous meta.
I can relate to this frustration although I suspect 25k out of stealth would have to be on like full zerk light armor as I think I usually get hit for about 7-8k on my high armored heavy but whatever.
Yes I agree that some of the spike damage would ultimately need to be toned down to compensate for the removal of downed state.
-
> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> Go troll someone else. Tired of your try hard.
I'm not trolling you that post is an entangled mess of ideas.
-
> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> > @"Israel.7056" said:
> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> > > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:
> > > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> > > > > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:
> > > > > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> > > > > > > I just love how people just assume stuff about other people.
> > > > > > > Just remember that for every person that thinks No Downstate is a good idea there is an equal amount that doesn't agree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pot calling the kettle black in that last full sentence. Assuming you know everyone to make that assumption that the WvWers are 50/50 on no downstate. Based on the many reddit and gw2 forum threads due to that week, the vocal majority leans towards the fact no down state week was enjoyed. Whether or not the majority I speak of is the majority of active WvW'ers or if they represent the actual majority of WvW'ers, however without actually knowing this, your assumption cannot be made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just wanted to point out the contradiction on your comment. Thats all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Im out
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. The majority that is vocal on the forums is a small amount compared to the actual players that don't come to the forums. It's okay, I don't mind you calling me names. I'm used to it by now. But it doesn't stop the fact that those of us that post on the forums or other forums are not the majority of players. We are just more vocal about it.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry mate, but if you read, I wasn't calling you names. Im not 12 or a PvPer. I was pointing out you were laughing that people assume things, yet you finished off with an assumption yourself. Thats all. I Apologize if you took it that I was calling you names.
> > >
> > > Thing is though is that what I stated was more fact to it than the people assuming player builds, newness, or skill. There are tons of reports, essays, studies, etc. that point out the fact that when it comes to forums most of the people that post on them are actually a minority when it comes to games. Also when it comes down to actually talking to people you find out that there are more likely 50/50 scenarios than there are 90/10. The 90/10 that you see is usually from some small sample that has been specifically chosen to show those result. Polls and Statistics are ran this way. Just by wording something a certain way you can get the results you are looking for. Such is the case with something like this thread. The title instantly draws all of those that are of the same mindset to get rid of Downstate to come and reply with their same thinking. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I understand where you are coming from in saying that I just made an assumption too, but if you are being honest then you would know that it's not really that much of an assumption. How many times have you seen two people tell a completely different story about the same thing?
> >
> > This post is a garbled mess just sayin
>
> Okay. I forget that I can't try to talk intelligently on the forums. I must dumb it down for everybody. My bad.
You seem to have confused intelligence with incoherence.
-
> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:
> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> > > > @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:
> > > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> > > > > I just love how people just assume stuff about other people.
> > > > > Just remember that for every person that thinks No Downstate is a good idea there is an equal amount that doesn't agree.
> > > >
> > > > Pot calling the kettle black in that last full sentence. Assuming you know everyone to make that assumption that the WvWers are 50/50 on no downstate. Based on the many reddit and gw2 forum threads due to that week, the vocal majority leans towards the fact no down state week was enjoyed. Whether or not the majority I speak of is the majority of active WvW'ers or if they represent the actual majority of WvW'ers, however without actually knowing this, your assumption cannot be made.
> > > >
> > > > Just wanted to point out the contradiction on your comment. Thats all
> > > >
> > > > Im out
> > >
> > > Right. The majority that is vocal on the forums is a small amount compared to the actual players that don't come to the forums. It's okay, I don't mind you calling me names. I'm used to it by now. But it doesn't stop the fact that those of us that post on the forums or other forums are not the majority of players. We are just more vocal about it.
> >
> > Sorry mate, but if you read, I wasn't calling you names. Im not 12 or a PvPer. I was pointing out you were laughing that people assume things, yet you finished off with an assumption yourself. Thats all. I Apologize if you took it that I was calling you names.
>
> Thing is though is that what I stated was more fact to it than the people assuming player builds, newness, or skill. There are tons of reports, essays, studies, etc. that point out the fact that when it comes to forums most of the people that post on them are actually a minority when it comes to games. Also when it comes down to actually talking to people you find out that there are more likely 50/50 scenarios than there are 90/10. The 90/10 that you see is usually from some small sample that has been specifically chosen to show those result. Polls and Statistics are ran this way. Just by wording something a certain way you can get the results you are looking for. Such is the case with something like this thread. The title instantly draws all of those that are of the same mindset to get rid of Downstate to come and reply with their same thinking. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I understand where you are coming from in saying that I just made an assumption too, but if you are being honest then you would know that it's not really that much of an assumption. How many times have you seen two people tell a completely different story about the same thing?
This post is a garbled mess just sayin
-
One of the main utilities of a forum is to allow the so called "vocal minority" to attempt to give a voice to the mostly silent majority.
-
> @"narcx.3570" said:
> Another interesting idea to play around with could be adding a type of resurrection sickness to the game. Where, we leave downstate as it is, whatever, but after you get rezed or rallied, you have like 50% decreased movement speed/defense/damage/reduced healing for 15 seconds or something. That way those people who really believe in strength in numbers and power rezzing will still have their advantage, but it won't be as heartbreaking when you're 1v3 and a rez gets off since you're not instantly getting blown up by a thief rejoining the fight with 100% of his burst potential or whatever. And also, since it'd be a lot easier to re-down them, it'd add another dimension to support play, rather than jut face roll power rez, you'd then have to protect the person for a bit since they're more of a sitting duck.
This is actually a pretty good idea imo.
-
> @"LetoII.3782" said:
> > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
>
> > During no downstate week there were more people complaining about more gankers than there were anything else. There were entire threads about it on the forums as well.
>
> The same gank squads as always that week.The difference was the amount of traffic they had access to.
> Mmmm so much respawn traffic.
>
>
>
And gank squads are good for the game imo. Keeps people on their toes so to speak. Games been so dead so long people forget there used to be a time when getting back to the zerg wasn't always so easy.
-
> @"zinkz.7045" said:
> It doesn't "disproportionately" favour a larger group any more than other things, a larger group can more afford to blow CDs on everything from boon sharing to cleansing, from carelessly tossing damage to boon corrupts, that advantage is not unique to blowing CDs to rez someone from downstate. As for rallying off downs, back when multiple players rallied off a single down it was a disproportionate advantage, but not since they changed it.
It's true that the larger group has more of everything but none of that matters as much if they can be instantly eliminated. No downed state makes it possible to instantly take out large swaths of people with no second chances through resses or rallies. This makes taking on larger groups with a smaller group much much easier to do because if you can land your damage you can win and you don't have to worry about gassing out as much. With downed state you have to kill people twice and this disproportionately favors larger groups because they have more of everything which means they gas slower.
This happened constantly for us during no downed state week. We would hit a map queue zerg, instantly take out 20-30 people and the rest would panic and run. I saw a lot of the better guild groups having the same experience; 20-30 people taking on map queues with much higher success rates.
-
> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> And no downed state also favors the larger numbers. Yes if you are lucky enough with a smaller group you can whittle that large group down and win. More likely than not though that larger group will just have a more easier time of rolling over your smaller group because now half of your small group is trying to run back from spawn point because they can't be rezzed or rally during the fight. Smaller groups get smaller faster than larger groups do unless you happen to catch that larger group either off guard or after they have blown through all of their dodges and CD's.
No it favors the group who can more consistently and effectively land their first round of damage. With downed state you have to land at least two big rounds of damage: one to down people a second to double them. The reason this favors larger groups disproportionately is because the larger your group the more cds you have to spare which means the more rounds of damage you can output in a given time frame. So basically the way the game works with downed state is smaller groups gas before larger groups.
Without downed state it only takes one big round of damage to win a fight which means a smaller group doesn't have to worry about gassing out as much.
It makes every fight feel that much faster because instead of having two main stages to a fight there's really only one and this distinctly favors smaller well coordinated high damage groups over mindless blobs.
It made zergbusting so much easier. 20v60 isn't so bad if you can instantly eliminate 30 people right at the start.
> We have been over this so many times. I highly doubt though that Anet will remove downed state. It's a core mechanic of their WvW game, and like so many other people have said when it comes to core mechanics, Stealth, it won't be removed. Just enjoy the times when Anet disables it for a week and leave it at that.
I also doubt that they'll remove it but that doesn't change the fact that they should.
I enjoyed no downed state week but I think it should be a permanent change to the game mode or at least a more frequent event.
-
> @"zinkz.7045" said:
> Nearly everything favours the side that outnumber, if you are 2 vs 5 for instance then guess what, boon sharing, healing, shared damage shields, blasting combo fields, etc all favour the 5 man group, so better remove everything from the game...
>
> Back on the planet earth the reality is balance is based on equal numbers and downstate is no different than anything else in that regard, better (or at least more organised) players will handle rezzes/stomps better.
Downed state in particular always disproportionately favors the larger group because the larger your group the easier it is to just run in blow cds and rally off downs or chain res once the outnumbered side runs out of cds.
With no downed state the margin for error for any sized group is much lower and so any sized group can be instantly whittled down which makes a huge difference in outnumbered fights.
-
> @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:
> > @"Kirin.7306" said:
> > might as well just remove forts and have a flag placed in the dirt to click on. seriously.
>
> I mean, that is pretty much what these "Fight Guilds" want. It's just no fun trying to take something from somebody who wants to defend it. Much better to just run over them and take it without opposition.
The only reason you're getting run over when you try to defend without siege is because you don't know how to actually fight.
This is the main long term problem with using siege over and over to defend stuff: You are successful when you otherwise wouldn't have been and over time the only practice you get is just dropping blueprints and pressing 1-5 while aiming the targeting reticle. I see this all the time. All the time.
Eventually people like you get completely left in the dust by the players who do join fight guilds and routinely practice the actual fighting aspect of the game and this accrues over years and years and now theres this entire subset of players on seemingly every server who simply cannot pull their own weight in a fight.
It's sad to see but it's a direct result of this path of least resistance mindset that so many people have that leads them to build siege instead of try the fight legit and risk losing the objective because they care more about holding a keep or a tower than they do about getting better at the game.
This minor nerf to siege only gives daylight to how far the divide has grown between the fighters and the turtles in terms of fighting ability.
-
> @"Vayne.8563" said:
> > @"Israel.7056" said:
> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:
> > > Yes if you can spend real money JUST to get a power advantage, and NOTHING ELSE, that would be pay to win. But an expansion isn't just a power advantage. It's the continuation of the game. When you buy an MMO you're buying access, not a game. It's like buying a membership to a club. That's just the way it is. In the old days you had a sub. You'd just pay the sub. If you stopped paying the sub, you had to stop playing the game. So yeah, you had to pay to play, which I guess means you'd pay to win as well, since you couldn't play at all without paying. This is a very similar thing. It's a purchase instead of a sub, to let you keep playing. Because you're expected to move forward and continue with the game, it's okay to raise the power. Because you're buying an entire game, not just power. The power is incidental to what you're buying.
> >
> > Well I have to ask what if it's now an expected part of gaming that in some games you can buy power out of a cash shop for real money? What if players who play these games now expect to be able to progress and get advantages over players who don't pay in that way? They could turn your argument around and say it's not "pay to win" because they expect the games to work like that. Would you then say their expectations are irrelevant?
> >
> > > If you only PvP, well, that doesn't matter. As I said it's like buying a Season ticket to Disney World, but only riding roller coasters. Not enough of them to make that worth it, and you'd have to decide it. Keep in mind, the game simply isn't meant to be free forever. It's a membership you're paying for...even if you're not paying for it monthly.
> >
> > It matters to me because I bought the xpacs solely to get a power advantage and I did so knowingly. The only reason I bought them was for the elite specs. If they'd given out the elites for free in WvW I'm sure myself and many many others would never have bought HoT or PoF.
> >
>
> Yes, it's expected that some games will sell power alone out of the cash shop and those games are pay to win. And calling them so you'll be using the name right. There are people who won't play those games because they don't want to play a pay to win game. But those that understand the funding system of MMOs will still buy an MMO that requires you to buy expansions because it's expected that if you're going to continue to play the game, you'll support it by buying those expansions.
>
> For people who don't minding paying to win, they'll know which games they are. Once every game is pay to win the term loses its original definition. We then can't decide between the original types of games, funded by expansions and the new games, funded by pay to win. There is a difference, even if you personally don't pay most of the game. It's like buying a car for the leather seats and then claiming you shouldn't have to pay for the motor. It's still a car. It's made to be a car. If you're just paying to sit in the seat, that's on you. This isn't a PvP game. It's a game. You pay for it and support it or all bets are off. Whether you don't play the rest of the game or not, the company is still paying the employees making and supporting the game.
>
> And make no mistake. If the PvE portion of this game was removed, there would be no game and you'd be playing nothing.
I think I rest my case on this one.
In the course of this discussion you have contradicted two of the key premises of your position though I'm not sure that you even realize it.
Interesting talk though to be sure.
-
Don't really need to do anything to prepare for it. If you're looking to bandwagon once it comes out I don't imagine that will be too hard to do and if you're not then nothing much changes.
Can WvW server be made not pay to win.
in World vs. World
Posted
> @"Vayne.8563" said:
> > @"Israel.7056" said:
> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:
> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:
> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:
> > > > > Yes if you can spend real money JUST to get a power advantage, and NOTHING ELSE, that would be pay to win. But an expansion isn't just a power advantage. It's the continuation of the game. When you buy an MMO you're buying access, not a game. It's like buying a membership to a club. That's just the way it is. In the old days you had a sub. You'd just pay the sub. If you stopped paying the sub, you had to stop playing the game. So yeah, you had to pay to play, which I guess means you'd pay to win as well, since you couldn't play at all without paying. This is a very similar thing. It's a purchase instead of a sub, to let you keep playing. Because you're expected to move forward and continue with the game, it's okay to raise the power. Because you're buying an entire game, not just power. The power is incidental to what you're buying.
> > > >
> > > > Well I have to ask what if it's now an expected part of gaming that in some games you can buy power out of a cash shop for real money? What if players who play these games now expect to be able to progress and get advantages over players who don't pay in that way? They could turn your argument around and say it's not "pay to win" because they expect the games to work like that. Would you then say their expectations are irrelevant?
> > > >
> > > > > If you only PvP, well, that doesn't matter. As I said it's like buying a Season ticket to Disney World, but only riding roller coasters. Not enough of them to make that worth it, and you'd have to decide it. Keep in mind, the game simply isn't meant to be free forever. It's a membership you're paying for...even if you're not paying for it monthly.
> > > >
> > > > It matters to me because I bought the xpacs solely to get a power advantage and I did so knowingly. The only reason I bought them was for the elite specs. If they'd given out the elites for free in WvW I'm sure myself and many many others would never have bought HoT or PoF.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, it's expected that some games will sell power alone out of the cash shop and those games are pay to win. And calling them so you'll be using the name right. There are people who won't play those games because they don't want to play a pay to win game. But those that understand the funding system of MMOs will still buy an MMO that requires you to buy expansions because it's expected that if you're going to continue to play the game, you'll support it by buying those expansions.
> > >
> > > For people who don't minding paying to win, they'll know which games they are. Once every game is pay to win the term loses its original definition. We then can't decide between the original types of games, funded by expansions and the new games, funded by pay to win. There is a difference, even if you personally don't pay most of the game. It's like buying a car for the leather seats and then claiming you shouldn't have to pay for the motor. It's still a car. It's made to be a car. If you're just paying to sit in the seat, that's on you. This isn't a PvP game. It's a game. You pay for it and support it or all bets are off. Whether you don't play the rest of the game or not, the company is still paying the employees making and supporting the game.
> > >
> > > And make no mistake. If the PvE portion of this game was removed, there would be no game and you'd be playing nothing.
> >
> > I think I rest my case on this one.
> >
> > In the course of this discussion you have contradicted two of the key premises of your position though I'm not sure that you even realize it.
> >
> > Interesting talk though to be sure.
> >
>
> The vast majority of people understand what I'm saying. If you really think expansions are fair game for pay to win, why not go post it to any MMORPG site and see what kind of response you get.
>
> What I'm saying isn't some mystical hidden lore, nor is it something I've made up in my basement. It's common knowledge.
>
> And not detailing a supposed flaw isn't going to win an argument. There's no case to defend here. No one calls WoW pay to win, but by your definition it is. Either we all follow the same rules or none of us do. Pay to win was invented to single out free games that sold power in the cash shop period. Not a guess. Not a rewriting of history. Until you can address that, there's really no point in even talking further about it.
My argument is that the term as it's commonly used is inherently logically inconsistent and marred with arbitrary distinctions that quickly fall apart upon scrutiny and I think you have demonstrated that pretty clearly here in this discussion.
I agree that there's no reason to discuss this further as it seems to me that I have nothing left to demonstrate to try to prove my point.